MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Testing the Role of Recollision in <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">N</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mn>2</mml:mn></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math> Air Lasing

2018· article· lv· W2794563089 on OpenAlexafffund
Mathew Britton, Patrick Laferrière, Dong Hyuk Ko, Zhengyan Li, Fanqi Kong, Graham G. Brown, A. Naumov, Chunmei Zhang, Ladan Arissian, P. B. Corkum

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Review Letters · 2018
Typearticle
Languagelv
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicLaser-Matter Interactions and Applications
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council CanadaUniversity of Ottawa
FundersArmy Research OfficeNational Research Council Canada
KeywordsFilamentationPhysicsFemtosecondHigh harmonic generationAutomatic gain controlPolarization (electrochemistry)OpticsJet (fluid)Atomic physicsLaserOptoelectronicsMechanicsChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It has been known for many years that during filamentation of femtosecond light pulses in air, gain is observed on the B to X transition in N_{2}^{+}. While the gain mechanism remains unclear, it has been proposed that recollision, a process that is fundamental to much of strong field science, is critical for establishing gain. We probe this hypothesis by directly comparing the influence of the ellipticity of the pump light on gain in air filaments. Then, we decouple filamentation from gain by measuring the gain in a thin gas jet that we also use for high harmonic generation. The latter allows us to compare the dependence of the gain on the ellipticity of the pump with the dependence of the high harmonic signal on the ellipticity of the fundamental. We find that gain and harmonic generation have very different behavior in both filaments and in the jet. In fact, in a jet we even measure gain with circular polarization. Thus, we establish that recollision does not play a significant role in creating the inversion.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.868
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.4180.004

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.239 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations73
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical Review LettersSame topicLaser-Matter Interactions and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207